Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Your opinion Should one be banned if caught speeding twice

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    E92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,147 ✭✭✭E92


    AugustusMaximus wrote: »
    Speed isn't the great killer that is always talked about.


    A ban for being caught speeding twice would be madness. Speeding accounts for 7% of all road fatalities. It would make a lot more sense if Gardai would implement the full ROR, not just bloody speed checks.

    But you see then they couldn't pull the wool over your eyes and steal money off us.

    I raised this point with somebody on this forum who says he's a Guard, and what he told me was that all the other many braches of the ROTR *almost never* happen when people see a squad car, which I accept, because I always see people slowing down whenever they see a marked Garda car even if they are under the speed limit.

    In fairness he said they were only really interested in people who are going WAY over the speed limit and people 15-20 km/h over are unlikely to get caught.

    The solution to a proper enforcement of the ROTR is for there to be more unmarked cars ensuring that *all* the ROTR are enforced. While I don't agree with speed enforcement being done the way it is because most of the speed limits are too low, if they were seen to be enforcing all the ROTR then I would accept them bothering to enforce all limits, because they are rules after all.
    AugustusMaximus wrote: »
    For instance, the Carrigtowhill bypass. It went up to 120kph a week ago. Does this mean that it was dangerous to drive at 120kph on that road two weeks ago ?

    Well according to the "speed kills"/"speeding is evil" argument yes it was dangerous because you broke a ROTR, but because you're now within the law if you driven between 101 and 120 km/h it's vnow fine because you're not breaking the law and therefore are not causing any danger.
    AugustusMaximus wrote: »
    20mph over the limit is roughtly 30kph.

    That would be 130kph on a HQDC which has a design specification of 160kph. 130kph would be 30kph less than the design limit of a HQDC and IMO, not unsafe for this class of roads.

    I'll put it with you like this. Autobahn with speed limits and sections without have the same crash and death rates.

    Absolutely. I don't think you can justify higher speed limits until such time as we get rid of lane hoggers and make driving on Motorways part of the driving test(having said that driving on DCs is exactly the same as Motorways only the speed limit is lower).

    The reason why there is no difference on Germany's Autobahns is because they drive so much better than we do, the reason higher limits wouldn't work here is because of our cavilier attitude towards driving.

    High speeds aren't dangerous if people know how to drive properly.

    That's a *completely* different thing from saying that "speed kills" though.


Advertisement